🚘 Headlines About California Highways – January 2026

[cahwyguy]

That's another problem. California has the highest gas tax in the nation, its neighbors have much lower taxes, but I don't any significant difference in the qualities of state highways inside and outside California. So they must be spending a big chunk of that money on other things. But that weakens the argument that California needs to find ways to tax electric car use in proportion to mileage, because what does distance traveled on the roads have to do with whatever else they're using the money for?

When you compare to other states, do you also take into account the number of miles in the state system? Where those miles are, and how much emergency storm or fire maintenance is required? How many miles are travelled on those highways, and the nature of the traffic and the damage it does to the highways?

California is a LARGE state -- not a large as Texas or Alaska, but a large state. It has a large number of highways in expensive maintenance areas, such as along the coast or in the mountains. It has a geology in some areas that is very prone to slides. It has a large Interstate system, which means lots of truck traffic. It has some of the most major cities in the country (LA, San Francisco, San Diego), which require lots of maintenance. It also is an expensive state that cares about the environment, meaning that the repair costs are more expensive, and the CEQA adds process steps. Repairs are more expensive out here. It is also a state that doesn't have a lot of general purpose toll roads, meaning we have to pay for the roads another way. That's why we have a higher gas tax.

As I pointed out, you can see exactly where the gas tax money is spent at https://build.ca.gov/ . The money really can't go to "other things", such as high speed rail, housing, medi-cal, schools, etc. The law requires it go to roads and to a lesser extent, road-related things such as transit and commuter rail. You can see that on the website, you can see that when you read the CTC minutes and see specific funding for roads coming out of SB1 funding.

Government allocates funds for specific pots of money, and the CTC then allocates those pots further into specific projects. The funds can't go elsewhere without accountable actions from the CTC, and funds can't be moved between the larger pots without action of the legislature, if it is possible at all.

[Plutonic Panda]

Are there folks that like taxes?

OK, I may be a weirdo here, but I'm absolutely happy to pay my fair share into a pool with other people to pay for cool stuff like infrastructure such as roads and trains and the maintenance in schools and education and what not. But obviously there needs to be a limit because I don't have unlimited money. In fact, I'm pretty poor at the moment. I do think the rich should be paying a little more, but we need to be careful about how much they are taxed as well.

My biggest problem is transparency and accountability. I didn't mind raising the gas tax in California last time if that meant we were going to get much better roads. I wasn't thrilled about it going to anything else other than roads, but I thought you know why not throw other systems like passenger rail a bone to help subsidize some of it.

And as Max said there's the VMT thing. I want them to keep widening freeways. They're not doing that. If anything, especially in LA, they are removing car infrastructure and making it harder to drive. On top of that we still have some insane scenarios like Sunset Drive through the Holmby Hills having potholes so big that they bent my rim. Absolutely insane given the fact that there's houses on each side of the road that can easily go for around $100 million. That just boggles my mind.

I don't wanna get political, but I get a little whatthefucky sometimes about how much taxes were paying in California and then seeing all of these proposals or reports that show our infrastructure needs more and more funding. On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. Sunset Blvd maintenance is not paid for via gas tax, that comes out of Property Tax and other city taxes, as it is multiple cities (Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood) (and possibly a little county). There, you need to blame the cities and the civic priorities, not the state or Caltrans.

Additionally, as for "On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.". Those are Federal Taxes, completely independent of the state gas tax or any proposed road usage tax. I agree that California doesn't get its share of the funds it pays into the Feds, but that's a different issue.

As for transparency and accountability: At least for the SB1 funds, there is a whole accountability website: https://build.ca.gov/ . So you can see where the funds are going.

The question that I responded to asked who likes paying taxes. They didn't refer to any specific tax like SB1. Hence why I also mentioned other publicly funded services like education and not just roads. I don't get to pick and choose where my taxes go unless I of course decide not to own property(which I really can't decide because I can't afford it) or the like.

[Quillz]

That's kind of what I was getting at, it seems it was more just about PR. Grandstanding. (But of course, come 2028 we could see a different EPA that might do things differently, so anything's possible). Probably countless examples, but it makes the news and that's what counts. (What doesn't make the news is when various laws get overturned or unenforced).

The biggest issue with EVs, at least for me, is still infrastructure. I still can't go to all the places I like to go and be assured there will be an EV charging station. I have no doubt that will improve in time, but "in time" would be closer to decades. Just like gas stations didn't just appear within a year of the Model T, it took a whole other decade. You're fine in major cities, most smaller towns, but when I want to go to national parks or more rural parts of the state, it's a toss-up. I had an issue last year where I nearly ran out of gas crossing Sherman Pass, and once I reached the Central Valley, nearly every gas station was closed. Finally came across one in Woodland just past midnight that was open, and I still had to travel to Fresno. If I had an EV, well, I might have been stuck at the actual Sherman Pass.

[cahwyguy]

The question that I responded to asked who likes paying taxes. They didn't refer to any specific tax like SB1. Hence why I also mentioned other publicly funded services like education and not just roads. I don't get to pick and choose where my taxes go unless I of course decide not to own property(which I really can't decide because I can't afford it) or the like.

Ah, but your response said "My biggest problem is transparency and accountability. I didn't mind raising the gas tax in California last time if that meant we were going to get much better roads. I wasn't thrilled about it going to anything else other than roads, but I thought you know why not throw other systems like passenger rail a bone to help subsidize some of it."

That is specifically about the gas tax, and it was that (and the following paragraph) to which I responded (which is why I quoted them).

[Max Rockatansky]

That's kind of what I was getting at, it seems it was more just about PR. Grandstanding. (But of course, come 2028 we could see a different EPA that might do things differently, so anything's possible). Probably countless examples, but it makes the news and that's what counts. (What doesn't make the news is when various laws get overturned or unenforced).

The biggest issue with EVs, at least for me, is still infrastructure. I still can't go to all the places I like to go and be assured there will be an EV charging station. I have no doubt that will improve in time, but "in time" would be closer to decades. Just like gas stations didn't just appear within a year of the Model T, it took a whole other decade. You're fine in major cities, most smaller towns, but when I want to go to national parks or more rural parts of the state, it's a toss-up. I had an issue last year where I nearly ran out of gas crossing Sherman Pass, and once I reached the Central Valley, nearly every gas station was closed. Finally came across one in Woodland just past midnight that was open, and I still had to travel to Fresno. If I had an EV, well, I might have been stuck at the actual Sherman Pass.

I have doubts about rural EV charging capabilities.  There is plenty of uncivilized terrain around me which I frequent that isn't even on the electric grid.  Bricking an EV on a Forest Service Road (especially if said EV doesn't have neutral gear) is not a problem I wish to find myself having. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Are there folks that like taxes?

OK, I may be a weirdo here, but I'm absolutely happy to pay my fair share into a pool with other people to pay for cool stuff like infrastructure such as roads and trains and the maintenance in schools and education and what not. But obviously there needs to be a limit because I don't have unlimited money. In fact, I'm pretty poor at the moment. I do think the rich should be paying a little more, but we need to be careful about how much they are taxed as well.

My biggest problem is transparency and accountability. I didn't mind raising the gas tax in California last time if that meant we were going to get much better roads. I wasn't thrilled about it going to anything else other than roads, but I thought you know why not throw other systems like passenger rail a bone to help subsidize some of it.

And as Max said there's the VMT thing. I want them to keep widening freeways. They're not doing that. If anything, especially in LA, they are removing car infrastructure and making it harder to drive. On top of that we still have some insane scenarios like Sunset Drive through the Holmby Hills having potholes so big that they bent my rim. Absolutely insane given the fact that there's houses on each side of the road that can easily go for around $100 million. That just boggles my mind.

I don't wanna get political, but I get a little whatthefucky sometimes about how much taxes were paying in California and then seeing all of these proposals or reports that show our infrastructure needs more and more funding. On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. Sunset Blvd maintenance is not paid for via gas tax, that comes out of Property Tax and other city taxes, as it is multiple cities (Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood) (and possibly a little county). There, you need to blame the cities and the civic priorities, not the state or Caltrans.

Additionally, as for "On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.". Those are Federal Taxes, completely independent of the state gas tax or any proposed road usage tax. I agree that California doesn't get its share of the funds it pays into the Feds, but that's a different issue.

As for transparency and accountability: At least for the SB1 funds, there is a whole accountability website: https://build.ca.gov/ . So you can see where the funds are going.

That's another problem. California has the highest gas tax in the nation, its neighbors have much lower taxes, but I don't any significant difference in the qualities of state highways inside and outside California. So they must be spending a big chunk of that money on other things. But that weakens the argument that California needs to find ways to tax electric car use in proportion to mileage, because what does distance traveled on the roads have to do with whatever else they're using the money for?

But see when it comes to what we're paying in fuel taxes we should have some of the nicest roads of any state in the country. The Bay Area alone has a higher GDP than the majority than most of entire states do. Property taxes are insane especially with Los Angeles's mansion tax and now they're saying they can't even repave the roads right now and they're blaming it on ADA and it just so conveniently happens to be not that long after HLA was passed that the city isn't able to pave roads.

I'm not trying to get political here, but the politics in California suck. And keeping this related to the way that they fund roads it sucks in that category. It seems to me like most of the bills that they propose to increase taxes or fees end up getting passed so it shouldn't have been hard to just keep SB1 revenue for roads only. Nothing else. I mean that's billions and billions and billions of extra dollars per year. They now have with that tax. They could easily work together and even help municipalities fund road projects like Sunset Boulevard with said money. But even if they wanted to do that measure HLA would state they would have to redesign the road to be a complete street or multi model or whatever the hell they have to do and there's no space to do that without removing a car lane and making sunset one lane each way through the area that I was previously talking about.

It's just insanity. In really it's pretty obvious that California politics are anti-Car and it just shows with California's position on switching from LOS to VMT. Because they could continue to widen and rebuild roads at the same time make cities more walkable and offer more transit options with another dedicated tax, which I'm sure would easily pass. 

[Plutonic Panda]

The question that I responded to asked who likes paying taxes. They didn't refer to any specific tax like SB1. Hence why I also mentioned other publicly funded services like education and not just roads. I don't get to pick and choose where my taxes go unless I of course decide not to own property(which I really can't decide because I can't afford it) or the like.

Ah, but your response said "My biggest problem is transparency and accountability. I didn't mind raising the gas tax in California last time if that meant we were going to get much better roads. I wasn't thrilled about it going to anything else other than roads, but I thought you know why not throw other systems like passenger rail a bone to help subsidize some of it."

That is specifically about the gas tax, and it was that (and the following paragraph) to which I responded (which is why I quoted them).

I see yeah sorry for not being clear enough about that. I am generalizing it in a sense that I don't mind paying higher taxes or taxes at all really but I want to see improvements. This might just be me but overall, I don't think the state highway system is all that bad. But then again I spend most of the time driving on the state highway systems and areas where we pretty much have a mild climate year-round and that's a pretty big advantage those roads get. It's also frustrating to see the 405 in the Sepulveda pass be paved over with asphalt, which is replacing cement.

[Max Rockatansky]

Actually, I find the Caltrans inventory on the whole to be maintained to a fairly decent standard.  I would probably rank Caltrans in the top third of state DOTs for road surface maintenance.  I was just on CA 245 yesterday and it is a state highway that has no business as being silky smooth as it currently is.  A lot of really high quality resurfacing projects were done (especially in my area) using SB1 money. 

Modern signage quality is probably the thing Caltrans is amongst the worst DOTs at.  Although, I can't bring myself to be upset avout fifty year old button copy gantries staying in service in lieu of the hobby cats meow that is external exit tabs.

Where California gets really bad is off the state highway system.  The counties ok the whole are generally pretty bad at road maintenance (especially outside urban areas).  There are way too many roads which should have never been paved that have since had deferred maintenance for 30-50 years. 

[Quillz]

I'm not trying to get political here,

Your entire post is political. Which is fine, doesn't seem to break any rules. But you don't need to hide.

[Quillz]

on switching from LOS to VMT.

A study is being conducted on the matter. Nothing has changed, and will not for a long time. You seem to be confusing studies for legislation that has been signed and actively enforced. We aren't there yet. And long before we get there, there will be proposals, additional studies, public comment, compromises, and so on. Legal processes are a slow process for a reason.

[Quillz]

It's also frustrating to see the 405 in the Sepulveda pass be paved over with asphalt, which is replacing cement.

Well, have you asked yourself why that decision was made? The reasons are likely public record and likely based on decades of feasibility studies regarding that part of the 405. Caltrans didn't just decide on a whim one day to go with asphalt, there are likely good reasons for doing it.

Like in some parts of Alaska, roads that were once paved were changed back to dirt. Seems like a downgrade, but it actually isn't. It creates far more durable roads during winters, while being cheaper to build and maintain. Asphalt and concrete have different properties, the Sepulveda Pass is one of the most heavily traveled locations in the world. Decisions regarding asphalt or concrete are going to take a lot of things into consideration.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not trying to get political here,

Your entire post is political. Which is fine, doesn't seem to break any rules. But you don't need to hide.

It is possible to really not have a political inclination in this.  For me, I really don't particularly care about the politics involved.  I do care though about what may potentially negatively affect my ability to freely drive recreationally. 

[Quillz]

I'm not trying to get political here,

Your entire post is political. Which is fine, doesn't seem to break any rules. But you don't need to hide.

It is possible to really not have a political inclination in this.  For me, I really don't particularly care about the politics involved.  I do care though about what may potentially negatively affect my ability to freely drive recreationally. 

I agree. I was just pointing out their "non political post" was very clearly political and their biases and world view came through. It's just a pet peeve of mine, when people say things like that. It's okay to be political, we are human beings. We should be political.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not trying to get political here,

Your entire post is political. Which is fine, doesn't seem to break any rules. But you don't need to hide.

It is possible to really not have a political inclination in this.  For me, I really don't particularly care about the politics involved.  I do care though about what may potentially negatively affect my ability to freely drive recreationally. 

I agree. I was just pointing out their "non political post" was very clearly political and their biases and world view came through. It's just a pet peeve of mine, when people say things like that. It's okay to be political, we are human beings. We should be political.

I've found the opposite to be true (at least for me) regarding politics.  I try to keep the things I care about closely linked to myself, family and friends.  I think that I've said this before but I get most of my current world news from road enthusiasts.

[Quillz]

I'm kind of the same. Any news worth anything I'll hear from people I know. Most of the "news" is just ragebait headlines.

I think trying to avoid political discussion is a big issue, though. Too many message boards confusing people just being close-minded morons who refuse to listen to anyone else from actual measured, constructive talking. The latter is important, this thread demonstrates that. There are many schools of thought regarding road infrastructure and how to deal with traffic and mass transit issues.

[cahwyguy]

I see yeah sorry for not being clear enough about that. I am generalizing it in a sense that I don't mind paying higher taxes or taxes at all really but I want to see improvements. This might just be me but overall, I don't think the state highway system is all that bad. But then again I spend most of the time driving on the state highway systems and areas where we pretty much have a mild climate year-round and that's a pretty big advantage those roads get. It's also frustrating to see the 405 in the Sepulveda pass be paved over with asphalt, which is replacing cement.

Moving this away from the politics: Most of the state does have a mild climate, meaning we don't have the freeze cycles of back east, but we do have expensive mudslides and fires (and although a road might survive a fire, it might still be faced with greater land movement without the ground cover). You also don't see results as quickly for anything but resurfacing projects, simply because of the state processes, and the fact that non-government organizations, as well as cities and counties, often have a major role in slowing down projects (a prime example of this are the issues related to utility relocation). There are also engineering issues often discovered during the planning, and even construction process. Most folks don't see those. I see them (and put them on my pages) when I'm looking at the CTC agenda items explaining why there is an increase in cost. What I don't put on my pages (because my pages care less about schedule and I have limited time) are the agenda items related to needing to extend the schedule for a project. So people don't see the results quickly, and therefore they *think* government isn't doing anything. This all goes back to the fact that most folks have no idea how state government actually works, how contracting processes work, how engineering and design processes work. They think that because they can go to Home Depot, by the pieces for a project, and put it up over a weekend, that's how the government can do things.

As for the asphalt over cement: I can hazard some guesses here. Look to the I-5 rebuild in LA County that added all those bridges and widened things. Think of how long that took, and how expensive it was with all the additional rebar, plus the downtime of closing the lanes to rebuild the pieces. I had to drive the 405 this weekend between Northridge and Santa Monica to get to a show at McCabes, and it took 90+ minutes! The public wouldn't stand for such a closure (nor would the EIR for the project). Then think about the fact that much of the lanes actually had their concrete replaced when the most recent widening occurred in the early 2000s for the HOV lanes. So here you're not dealing with 60 year old concrete -- it is perhaps 15 years old. A good layer of asphalt should protect the concrete underneath, and likely be more self-sealing over time.

[FredAkbar]

I had an issue last year where I nearly ran out of gas crossing Sherman Pass, and once I reached the Central Valley, nearly every gas station was closed. Finally came across one in Woodland just past midnight that was open, and I still had to travel to Fresno.

Maybe you meant Woody, or Woodville? Guessing you didn't drive 200 miles past Fresno to Woodland...

[FredAkbar]

If I had to guess, with how rapidly EVs are being adopted, it's more likely they will just incorporate some generic electricity rate tax. That avoids needing to measure anyone's miles, or ending the gas taxes at the same time, or dealing with PHEVs like mine. It doesn't solve the issue for people with solar, but I have 100% confidence that PG&E and the others will find new ways of screwing solar users to whatever extent is needed.

I can't see them banning home chargers. Or maybe they'll just tax public chargers like Chargepoint, figuring that will at least pay for the road use of people on long road trips, and local municipalities can figure out how to pay for their own streets some other way.

[pderocco]

That's another problem. California has the highest gas tax in the nation, its neighbors have much lower taxes, but I don't any significant difference in the qualities of state highways inside and outside California. So they must be spending a big chunk of that money on other things. But that weakens the argument that California needs to find ways to tax electric car use in proportion to mileage, because what does distance traveled on the roads have to do with whatever else they're using the money for?

When you compare to other states, do you also take into account the number of miles in the state system? Where those miles are, and how much emergency storm or fire maintenance is required? How many miles are travelled on those highways, and the nature of the traffic and the damage it does to the highways?

California is a LARGE state -- not a large as Texas or Alaska, but a large state. It has a large number of highways in expensive maintenance areas, such as along the coast or in the mountains. It has a geology in some areas that is very prone to slides. It has a large Interstate system, which means lots of truck traffic. It has some of the most major cities in the country (LA, San Francisco, San Diego), which require lots of maintenance. It also is an expensive state that cares about the environment, meaning that the repair costs are more expensive, and the CEQA adds process steps. Repairs are more expensive out here. It is also a state that doesn't have a lot of general purpose toll roads, meaning we have to pay for the roads another way. That's why we have a higher gas tax.

As I pointed out, you can see exactly where the gas tax money is spent at https://build.ca.gov/ . The money really can't go to "other things", such as high speed rail, housing, medi-cal, schools, etc. The law requires it go to roads and to a lesser extent, road-related things such as transit and commuter rail. You can see that on the website, you can see that when you read the CTC minutes and see specific funding for roads coming out of SB1 funding.

Government allocates funds for specific pots of money, and the CTC then allocates those pots further into specific projects. The funds can't go elsewhere without accountable actions from the CTC, and funds can't be moved between the larger pots without action of the legislature, if it is possible at all.

California is a large state, which means it has lots of roads to maintain, but it also has lots of drivers to tax. So I'm not convinced that the per capita[/] road budget is so high that it needs a gas tax that's almost 4x Arizona's.

Also, transit and commuter rail are the "other things" I was thinking of. I expect Arizona or Nevada spend much less on that. I oppose using gas taxes or road taxes to subsidize rail.

[cahwyguy]

California is a large state, which means it has lots of roads to maintain, but it also has lots of drivers to tax. So I'm not convinced that the per capita[/] road budget is so high that it needs a gas tax that's almost 4x Arizona's.

Also, transit and commuter rail are the "other things" I was thinking of. I expect Arizona or Nevada spend much less on that. I oppose using gas taxes or road taxes to subsidize rail.

The major urban roads in Arizona are pretty much Phoenix and Tucson, and there isn't that much in Tucson. Flagstaff doesn't have much to speak of. The rest are open highway, so their costs would be much lower.

Similarly, in Nevada, you're talking Las Vegas and Reno, in a state that is very opposed to taxes.

As for commuter rail: I think the thinking is that if they can improve systems such that local traffic moves to using transit (which can make a difference in places like Southern California and the SF Bay Area), they can save the extremely large expense of widening, what with the environmental and right of way costs. It also has impacts on climate change goals, which I know you don't care about but is important to the legislators who wrote the laws.

But let's not move this into the same digression you did with another recent post that debates widening. I know you don't like gas taxes going to commuter rail. But there may be others out there who don't understand the reasoning.

[Plutonic Panda]

Actually, I find the Caltrans inventory on the whole to be maintained to a fairly decent standard.  I would probably rank Caltrans in the top third of state DOTs for road surface maintenance.  I was just on CA 245 yesterday and it is a state highway that has no business as being silky smooth as it currently is.  A lot of really high quality resurfacing projects were done (especially in my area) using SB1 money. 

Modern signage quality is probably the thing Caltrans is amongst the worst DOTs at.  Although, I can't bring myself to be upset avout fifty year old button copy gantries staying in service in lieu of the hobby cats meow that is external exit tabs.

Where California gets really bad is off the state highway system.  The counties ok the whole are generally pretty bad at road maintenance (especially outside urban areas).  There are way too many roads which should have never been paved that have since had deferred maintenance for 30-50 years.

I mean, I'll be honest I really don't pay that much attention to signage but I tend to agree. I just didn't go as far as to say that the entirety of the road system is that great because I haven't traveled near nearly extensively as you seem to have. Though I will say the mountainous roads I've been on duty seem to be in pretty good shape.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm not trying to get political here,

Your entire post is political. Which is fine, doesn't seem to break any rules. But you don't need to hide.

I'm not trying to hide anything I support Trump. I'm just trying my best not to break the forum rules, but it gets into kind of a gray area when we start discussing road funding and where the state wants to allocate funding, it's getting from car drivers and certain agendas that our lawmakers have. I'm not hiding anything if you want to DM me and ask me what my beliefs are. I have no problem explaining to you what I believe. I'm simply stating that it's hard to separate the political nature of what I see happening with funding in California and the taxation that we ensure and what the use it for.

[Plutonic Panda]

I see yeah sorry for not being clear enough about that. I am generalizing it in a sense that I don't mind paying higher taxes or taxes at all really but I want to see improvements. This might just be me but overall, I don't think the state highway system is all that bad. But then again I spend most of the time driving on the state highway systems and areas where we pretty much have a mild climate year-round and that's a pretty big advantage those roads get. It's also frustrating to see the 405 in the Sepulveda pass be paved over with asphalt, which is replacing cement.

Moving this away from the politics: Most of the state does have a mild climate, meaning we don't have the freeze cycles of back east, but we do have expensive mudslides and fires (and although a road might survive a fire, it might still be faced with greater land movement without the ground cover). You also don't see results as quickly for anything but resurfacing projects, simply because of the state processes, and the fact that non-government organizations, as well as cities and counties, often have a major role in slowing down projects (a prime example of this are the issues related to utility relocation). There are also engineering issues often discovered during the planning, and even construction process. Most folks don't see those. I see them (and put them on my pages) when I'm looking at the CTC agenda items explaining why there is an increase in cost. What I don't put on my pages (because my pages care less about schedule and I have limited time) are the agenda items related to needing to extend the schedule for a project. So people don't see the results quickly, and therefore they *think* government isn't doing anything. This all goes back to the fact that most folks have no idea how state government actually works, how contracting processes work, how engineering and design processes work. They think that because they can go to Home Depot, by the pieces for a project, and put it up over a weekend, that's how the government can do things.

As for the asphalt over cement: I can hazard some guesses here. Look to the I-5 rebuild in LA County that added all those bridges and widened things. Think of how long that took, and how expensive it was with all the additional rebar, plus the downtime of closing the lanes to rebuild the pieces. I had to drive the 405 this weekend between Northridge and Santa Monica to get to a show at McCabes, and it took 90+ minutes! The public wouldn't stand for such a closure (nor would the EIR for the project). Then think about the fact that much of the lanes actually had their concrete replaced when the most recent widening occurred in the early 2000s for the HOV lanes. So here you're not dealing with 60 year old concrete -- it is perhaps 15 years old. A good layer of asphalt should protect the concrete underneath, and likely be more self-sealing over time.

Yeah, but again, you also have to understand simply reducing the 405 to 3 lanes each way creates horrendous traffic not just on the freeway but literally it trickles all the way to Laurel Canyon. I know this because I spend most of my time in West LA and I'm moving to Brentwood, which is especially going to be irritating. Given the fact that asphalt does not last nearly as long as concrete does. So if they're gonna shut down the road or close lanes and crate insane backups I would rather they just do it the right way and use concrete, which will last much longer. On top of that, they're already considering adding a new lane each way through the pass. I'm not sure which alternative they're gonna go with, but from what I've read, they will not be increasing the actual width of the freeway. It will just be a lane in shoulder width reconfiguration. That's part of the plan to create HOT lanes, which I'm sure you're aware of.

And I'm sure there were some problems going on that led them to carry out this project, but on the surface, the roads seemed fine or at least it wasn't in dire need of needing to be resurfaced. But it's like you have two options. One of them is more of a short term fix the other one is a long-term fix. Phoenix figured this out the hard way with rubberized asphalt and they're now reversing course.

[cahwyguy]

On top of that, they're already considering adding a new lane each way through the pass. I'm not sure which alternative they're gonna go with, but from what I've read, they will not be increasing the actual width of the freeway. It will just be a lane in shoulder width reconfiguration. That's part of the plan to create HOT lanes, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Adding an extra lane is something I would notice and capture on my page. So I just reviewed what I have. Right now, the lane addition was only one alternative under consideration. I've got a feeling they aren't going to do that: They are just going to convert the existing lane to HOT, and add a bit more buffer between the HOT lane and the general purpose lanes, as they did in Orange County, in order to better separate the lanes and provide space for a divider, with clearer entrances and exits for the tolling. As I noted, what they did in Orange County S of Route 22 is a prime example of what is most likely. The current page on the expresslanes, https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/d7-i405-sepulveda-expresslanes , says nothing about adding lanes.

The repave project page, at https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/d7-405-repave-project , indicates only 2 lanes are being replaced. The Metro Express Lanes project page, at https://www.metro.net/projects/i-405-expresslanes-project/ , does not talk about an additional GP lane -- only the potential for two HOT lanes, and indicates the project is still in the planning phases. They are already overdue on the Final EIR for the expresslanes (they said 2025); I don't see even a draft EIR published for discussion, only a scoping report ( https://www.metro.net/documents/2025/01/i-405-sepulveda-pass-expresslanes-scoping-reportpdf/ ) . The 2023 fact sheet ( https://www.metro.net/documents/2025/01/i-405sepulvedapass_expresslanes_factsheet_2023-v2pdf/ ) shows that they are way overdue -- the Draft EIR was due in 2024.

Given the approval of the new rail line under the SM mountains in this area, I'm going to guess that will factor into a rework of the EIR, and the alternative will just focus on converting the existing lane.

As for the concrete vs asphalt: The answer might have been different if they were doing a complete rebuild, but they are only replacing the two inner lanes. There, the asphalt could be known to be temporary given the upcoming rework for the HOT lanes.

[Plutonic Panda]

I hear what you're saying but I think Metro knows the reality of the situation here and that a mean relief is an extra lane added to the freeway and not a $25 billion subway that won't be built for another decade at minimum.

And as for the asphalt thing I understand what their website says, but I drive this road every single day and they are definitely doing more work than just the two inner lanes. It looks like to me they're replacing at three maybe even four of the inner lanes with asphalt. Which is kind of weird because when they did the last expansion back in the 2010s they built the Outer lanes with concrete but left the inner lanes with asphalt.